Patents Court grants declarations on interim FRAND licence terms

27/06/25

The Patents Court (Mellor J) has granted declarations as to the terms of an interim FRAND licence in a judgment handed down on 25 June 2025 ([2025] EWHC 1432 (Pat)).

The application arose out of a dispute relating to the FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms for a licence between Samsung and ZTE, concerning standard essential mobile phone patents.

Following the Court of Appeal’s judgments in Panasonic v Xiaomi [2024] EWCA Civ 1143 and Lenovo v Ericsson [2025] EWCA Civ 182, Samsung (which will be the net payor under the eventual FRAND licence) asked the English court to determine terms for an interim licence.  Samsung argued that the interim licence terms should be subject to adjustment by reference to the determination of the English court at the FRAND trial listed for early 2026. 

ZTE offered an interim licence on materially the terms sought by Samsung, subject to adjustment by reference to the determination of the Chongqing Court in parallel Chinese FRAND proceedings.

The Court rejected Samsung’s criticisms of Chinese law and the Chinese courts, finding that “the evidence in support of [them] was less than compelling” and recording the Judge’s “susp[icion] that, on reflection, Samsung will accept that these points should not have been raised” (para 81).

The Court found that a willing licensor in ZTE’s position would submit to the English FRAND determination, since the English Court had been first seised of the dispute.  Mellor J held that ZTE’s pursuit of injunctions against Samsung in other jurisdictions was not the conduct of a willing licensor, whilst recognising that Samsung was also pursuing injunctive and other proceedings against ZTE around the world.  Mellor J acknowledged that “one of the unintended consequences of [the Court’s] judgment is that it enhances the significance of the Court first seised of a claim to determine FRAND terms”, which would have the unhelpful consequences noted in earlier case-law (para 161); the Judge considered that there was nothing that the Court could do about this.

Read the judgement here.